[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Tue May 29 10:26:19 CEST 2007
>> ok, i give. if ula address space is assigned/managed by >> registries, how is it actually different from pi space? > Basically ULA space has the same 'routability' as RFC1918 space which is a benefit because ...? rfc 1918 space is a hack to deal with an address space shortage. we are told ipv6 space is effectively infinite. hence we do not need rfc 1918 style space. > with the added benefit of less (or in case of ULA central: no) > possibility for conflicting addresses when merging/connecting > separate networks. because, in statistical hope, it will not overlap. i.e. it does not even conserve space a la 1918. so, again, what's the benefit? > PI space is expected to be routed globally (if the user of the space > wants to). as has been amply demonstrated, 1918 space leaks time and again. so this ula stuff will leak time and again. >> if ipv6 space is effectively infinite (and we once thought ipv4 >> space was), then what is the use of ula address space? why not >> just assign vanilla ipv6 space? > At this moment there is no IPv6 PI spa so we do this kinky thing to create a half-assed version of it? pfui! randy
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]